Irish Rail

sebcity · 12-08-2014 10:28am #1

I heard on the radio yesterday that Irish Rail are losing 500k a week.

The tickets are increasing in price yearly - I'd imagine that covers increasing diesel costs, salaries etc.... so how are they losing half a million a week?! Has the amount of commuters fallen?

Riskymove · 12-08-2014 10:53am

sebcity wrote: »

I heard on the radio yesterday that Irish Rail are losing 500k a week.

The tickets are increasing in price yearly - I'd imagine that covers increasing diesel costs, salaries etc.... so how are they losing half a million a week?! Has the amount of commuters fallen?

unprofitable routes?

High staff costs?

fare evasion?

drop in passengers?

works to repair damage - natural and man-made?

corktina · 12-08-2014 12:29pm

sebcity wrote: »

I heard on the radio yesterday that Irish Rail are losing 500k a week.

The tickets are increasing in price yearly - I'd imagine that covers increasing diesel costs, salaries etc.... so how are they losing half a million a week?! Has the amount of commuters fallen?

of course it has fallen...that's what happens when less people are working

traprunner · 12-08-2014 12:38pm

They have priced themselves out of the market. More people have started using buses that are half the cost for the same journey.

SandyfordGuy · 12-08-2014 12:40pm

they have a little less subsidy, but the fact certain sectors of their staff are not willing to take either a pay cut or a cut to their terms and conditions won't be helping them.

Jamie2k9 · 12-08-2014 1:55pm

Its not 500,000 per week, based on last years losses its 300,000.

They have priced themselves out of the market. More people have started using buses that are half the cost for the same journey.

Numbers have started to increase this year.

Boulevardier · 12-08-2014 2:03pm

The main problem is that the government subvention was slashed during the recession.

Commuters should demand a full restoration of the subvention as economic circumstances improve.

SandyfordGuy · 12-08-2014 2:10pm

The subvention has come down, but the costs, particularly salaries, have not been reduced to reflect this.

Boulevardier · 12-08-2014 2:27pm

You cannot cut salaries just because of the subvention cut. That is why the key to current industrial problems is to raise the subvention again.

SandyfordGuy · 12-08-2014 2:37pm

You don't have to cut salaries, there are other ways of doing it, removal of perks etc, but those were rejected by large numbers of staff so there had to be some other option.

The fact is the subvention had to be cut because the country could not afford it. Just thowing money around like it's going out of fashion is the reason this country was brought to it's knees. If you throw too much money at things rather than solve the underlying problems, this just papers over the cracks and creates inefficiency.

If decreases in subvention should not be linked to pay cuts, then neither should increases in subvention be linked to pay rises. But when it was increased during the Celtic tiger years many were demanding pay rises or there would be industrial unrest.

I agree that over the years to come there should be some increase in subvention if the economy continues improving, but previous levels are not viable for at least a few years yet, and in the meantime we should try and make public companies as efficient as possible.

mickydoomsux · 12-08-2014 3:21pm

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

You don't have to cut salaries, there are other ways of doing it, removal of perks etc,

What perks do you think we get, out of curiosity?

end of the road · 12-08-2014 6:12pm

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

The subvention has come down, but the costs, particularly salaries, have not been reduced to reflect this.

even if the staff costs came down, no doubt it would be wiped away by another cut to the subsidy rather then putting it back into investment

end of the road · 12-08-2014 6:14pm

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

You don't have to cut salaries, there are other ways of doing it, removal of perks etc, but those were rejected by large numbers of staff so there had to be some other option.

The fact is the subvention had to be cut because the country could not afford it. Just thowing money around like it's going out of fashion is the reason this country was brought to it's knees. If you throw too much money at things rather than solve the underlying problems, this just papers over the cracks and creates inefficiency.

If decreases in subvention should not be linked to pay cuts, then neither should increases in subvention be linked to pay rises. But when it was increased during the Celtic tiger years many were demanding pay rises or there would be industrial unrest.

I agree that over the years to come there should be some increase in subvention if the economy continues improving, but previous levels are not viable for at least a few years yet, and in the meantime we should try and make public companies as efficient as possible.

i don't believe that is the case, they didn't reject it but accepted them being removed in exchange for retaining the current core pay, the country can afford subsidy by the way, paying for a high quality transport system such as rail isn't "throwing money around like it's going out of fashion" mind you i agree that the amount of money wasted on rolling stock which is now stored surplus to requirements yet which won't see service again certainly doesn't help curb people from having such an impression.

Jawgap · 12-08-2014 7:33pm

Fares are too high.

The 'walk-up' price for me to go Laytown to Dublin tomorrow (one-way) is €14-80.

The fare on the bus is €5-50 with the LEAP card - Laytown train station is not within the commute zone so doesn't have the LEAP card facility.

For my €5-50 I get a seat too. Myself and herself used to take the train, but it just became too expensive relative the bus.

If they provided a decent service at a reasonable cost people would use it more.

Judgement Day · 12-08-2014 7:42pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

What perks do you think we get, out of curiosity?

In fairness now, I count a number of Irish Rail employees amongst my friends and the biggest part of their day is spent watching out for a roving manager arriving at their depot. Surely a well paid job doing very little is a very large perk in itself?

end of the road · 12-08-2014 8:04pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Fares are too high.

The 'walk-up' price for me to go Laytown to Dublin tomorrow (one-way) is €14-80.

The fare on the bus is €5-50 with the LEAP card - Laytown train station is not within the commute zone so doesn't have the LEAP card facility.

For my €5-50 I get a seat too. Myself and herself used to take the train, but it just became too expensive relative the bus.

If they provided a decent service at a reasonable cost people would use it more.

i agree however i will put this to you, irish rail have to fully fund their infrastructure, upkeep/other costs, the busses pay toards the infrastructure they use but they have the advantage of having other vehicles to share the costs. if IE removed the yield management nonsense and had enough carriges maybe they could bring down fairs a bit, but that will depend on the government realising that for the most part public transport needs paying for.

Jamie2k9 · 12-08-2014 8:18pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

What perks do you think we get, out of curiosity?

Many staff get a gold plated pension :rolleyes: which I believe no changes were agreed with these pay cuts.

I mean what makes IE staff different to DB or BE staff who are probably on lower wages anyway and they had to take more cuts for very similar jobs across many departments.

The only part of the cuts I take some issue is the people on 30k who have to take the same cuts as those on 40-56k which is wrong.

mickydoomsux · 12-08-2014 9:08pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Many staff get a gold plated pension :rolleyes: which I believe no changes were agreed with these pay cuts.

Really, care to provide some proof of this claim?

I mean what makes IE staff different to DB or BE staff who are probably on lower wages anyway and they had to take more cuts for very similar jobs across many departments.

Once again, any proof?

The only part of the cuts I take some issue is the people on 30k who have to take the same cuts as those on 40-56k which is wrong.

The cuts are actually stepped according to what you earn with lower paid people paying a smaller percentage than higher earners. ~60% of employees fall into the lowest bracket/percentage of cuts

Jamie2k9 · 12-08-2014 11:10pm

Really, care to provide some proof of this claim?

Correct me if I am wrong isn't the average cost of employees 50k-60k?

Once again, any proof?

What proof do you want? How are Customer service staff different in IE and BE?

The cuts are actually stepped according to what you earn with lower paid people paying a smaller percentage than higher earners. ~60% of employees fall into the lowest bracket/percentage of cuts

It was 1.7% for workers up to 56k and I understand that almost 40% of those are under 36k and I just think it should be a lower cost for under 36k and a higher cut for those between 36-56k.

Hilly Bill · 13-08-2014 12:31am

Judgement Day wrote: »

In fairness now, I count a number of Irish Rail employees amongst my friends and the biggest part of their day is spent watching out for a roving manager arriving at their depot. Surely a well paid job doing very little is a very large perk in itself?

Thats managers for you.

Hilly Bill · 13-08-2014 12:32am

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Many staff get a gold plated pension :rolleyes: which I believe no changes were agreed with these pay cuts.

I mean what makes IE staff different to DB or BE staff who are probably on lower wages anyway and they had to take more cuts for very similar jobs across many departments.

The only part of the cuts I take some issue is the people on 30k who have to take the same cuts as those on 40-56k which is wrong.

Another urban myth.

Neon_Lights · 13-08-2014 12:35am

Rail will be privatised by 2020 with irish rail and cie managing the infrastructure

Hilly Bill · 13-08-2014 12:41am

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Rail will be privatised by 2020 with irish rail and cie managing the infrastructure

Sooner than that.

end of the road · 13-08-2014 12:56am

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Rail will be privatised by 2020 with irish rail and cie managing the infrastructure

its hard to know, on one hand doing it might look good politicaly, on the other hand will the government actually turn on the taps to pay for it

Neon_Lights · 13-08-2014 1:09am

end of the road wrote: »

its hard to know, on one hand doing it might look good politicaly, on the other hand will the government actually turn on the taps to pay for it

To be honest having had experience in state companies, short term spend over long term spiralling spend is favourable. Where I was it was commonplace for workers on seven and a half hour day to sit around and drink tea for half it. Efficiency isnt a key point of theirs, costs are extremely high due to these mandated lazebags who are in uproar because the job isnt as cushy anymore.

Jawgap · 13-08-2014 7:49am

end of the road wrote: »

i agree however i will put this to you, irish rail have to fully fund their infrastructure, upkeep/other costs, the busses pay toards the infrastructure they use but they have the advantage of having other vehicles to share the costs. if IE removed the yield management nonsense and had enough carriges maybe they could bring down fairs a bit, but that will depend on the government realising that for the most part public transport needs paying for.

I get what you're saying but I think it's a bit irrelevant. Knowing why fares are high (relative to the alternatives) is not going to encourage me to pay them.

I think IE has a lot going for it and a lot of potential but there are other aspects of their operations they could look at to improve the 'experience' at zero cost to the company.

Customer service, for a start, is shocking. The website etc is fine but in my experience most of the staff who interact day-to-day with the paying customers have at best an indifferent attitude to providing a service, and a minority (still too many) are downright hostile.

Also - just based on travelling by rail in quite a few other countries - IE seem significantly over-staffed. Connolly and Heuston, for their size, seem to have a lot of IE staff milling about on platforms - checking, re-checking and checking again tickets, etc. I'm not sure who lean or bloated the back-office is.

jackofalltrades · 13-08-2014 12:17pm

Boulevardier wrote: »

The main problem is that the government subvention was slashed during the recession.

Commuters should demand a full restoration of the subvention as economic circumstances improve.

The subsidy shouldn't be increased until Irish Rail is as efficient as it can be with the existing subsidy.
And that includes closing unviable routes.

Any subsequent subsidy increase should be then linked to measurable performance targets.

You cannot cut salaries just because of the subvention cut

Why not? Any other business that sees it income reduce usually tries to reduce wages as part of cost saving measures.

end of the road wrote: »

the country can afford subsidy by the way, paying for a high quality transport system such as rail isn't "throwing money around like it's going out of fashion"

No it can't, we're borrowing huge amounts just to cover day-to-day expenditure as it is.

end of the road · 13-08-2014 2:02pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The subsidy shouldn't be increased until Irish Rail is as efficient as it can be with the existing subsidy.
And that includes closing unviable routes.

what routes would they be. really the unviable routes closed in the 60s, closing any more will solve nothing, like it solved nothing then. tell us all how more efficient irish rail could be on the current subsidy?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Any subsequent subsidy increase should be then linked to measurable performance targets.

no it shouldn't, management pay should, the subsidy is to pay for the service, so it should be payed.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Why not? Any other business that sees it income reduce usually tries to reduce wages as part of cost saving measures.

and thats been and being done.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

No it can't, we're borrowing huge amounts just to cover day-to-day expenditure as it is.

and rail is part of that, like public transport in general.

end of the road · 13-08-2014 2:13pm

Neon_Lights wrote: »

To be honest having had experience in state companies, short term spend over long term spiralling spend is favourable. Where I was it was commonplace for workers on seven and a half hour day to sit around and drink tea for half it. Efficiency isnt a key point of theirs, costs are extremely high due to these mandated lazebags who are in uproar because the job isnt as cushy anymore.

i can't see privatization meaning a "cheeper" railway. all though if it was done and the government turned on the taps and invested in the current network i could probably live with it

Copyerselveson · 13-08-2014 2:49pm

Privatisation isn't the cure-all that some may think it is. Here in England the levels of government subsidy are far higher than in the supposedly bad old days of British Rail.

BR's main problem was the same problem IÉ now faces; inadequate subsidy resulting in increasingly inferior services and poor infrastructure.

The Irish state is no stranger to subsidising other forms of transport. The Motorway system in places like the Waterford Motorway, the M3 and the Limerick tunnels are sucking up masses of government subsidies and the railway is losing out. In many respects the problems now faced by IÉ are the drying of of the government subvention - but out of that subvention they are expected to maintain services and the infrastructure.

Money can be found to subsidise Roadstone as it always has been found but somehow the Keynesian attitudes to the Motorway network suddenly become Thatcherite when the railway is looking for money.

If we are to privatise the railways then money must be spent on bringing the rail infrastructure up to scratch and removing bottlenecks.

Essential projects like the Dublin Airport extension, Dart Underground and the Pace-Navan link need to be built but we also need to pave the way for higher speed operation and provision of longer passing loops where needed and the elimination of Temporary Speed Restrictions that choke the railway. Railway services need to run when passengers require them and if that means early starts and significantly later finishes of timetables then so be it. Recruit and train more staff and pay them a living wage too.

NI Railways runs at a profit, and while Stormont could spend more on improving the NI Railways network we could do well to follow the NI example where the railway is in profit, has cash reserves and is still owned by the people.

For too long the railway has been a political football and subsidies to certain favoured road building companies needs to stop.

end of the road · 13-08-2014 3:05pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I get what you're saying but I think it's a bit irrelevant. Knowing why fares are high (relative to the alternatives) is not going to encourage me to pay them.

oh i know, i wasn't suggesting it would, but just putting it to you as something to think about as a reason to why fairs on a railway will be higher.

Jawgap wrote: »

I think IE has a lot going for it and a lot of potential but there are other aspects of their operations they could look at to improve the 'experience' at zero cost to the company.

absolutely, and i've said as such many times on here and other places.

Jawgap wrote: »

Customer service, for a start, is shocking. The website etc is fine but in my experience most of the staff who interact day-to-day with the paying customers have at best an indifferent attitude to providing a service, and a minority (still too many) are downright hostile.

i don't doubt you have had bad experiences with customer service staff, but for me any dealings i have had with staff, they have been friendly and professional, but i have no doubt there are some who, well, aren't

Jawgap wrote: »

just based on travelling by rail in quite a few other countries - IE seem significantly over-staffed. Connolly and Heuston, for their size, seem to have a lot of IE staff milling about on platforms - checking, re-checking and checking again tickets, etc. I'm not sure who lean or bloated the back-office is.

i'm not sure if they are overstaffed, but staff in the wrong places definitely

Jamie2k9 · 13-08-2014 3:58pm

Another urban myth.

Myth maybe but pension costs are a major part of the high employee costs. IE staff got away with a lot compared to some sectors of the public service.

As for privatization don't see it myself as most rail services make losses even with state funding.

n97 mini · 13-08-2014 4:18pm

Copyerselveson wrote: »

The Motorway system in places like the Waterford Motorway, the M3 and the Limerick tunnels are sucking up masses of government subsidies

I thought motorists collectively funded all roads (and more) via motor tax.

There is an argument that rail shouldn't be subsidised by ordinary taxpayers, many of whom don't use it at all.

Personally I would close all lines that are hopelessly losing money once a best effort to make them profitable has been tried and failed.

Judgement Day · 13-08-2014 4:38pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I thought motorists collectively funded all roads (and more) via motor tax.

There is an argument that rail shouldn't be subsidised by ordinary taxpayers, many of whom don't use it at all.

Personally I would close all lines that are hopelessly losing money once a best effort to make them profitable has been tried and failed.

The entire rail system so?

Copyerselveson · 13-08-2014 4:57pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I thought motorists collectively funded all roads (and more) via motor tax.

There is an argument that rail shouldn't be subsidised by ordinary taxpayers, many of whom don't use it at all.

Personally I would close all lines that are hopelessly losing money once a best effort to make them profitable has been tried and failed.

Note that funds raised by motor tax don't necessarily go back directly to roads.

And one way of remedying the lack of availability of rail transport to all taxpayers is to extend the rail network to be accessible to all taxpayers.

end of the road · 13-08-2014 5:01pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I thought motorists collectively funded all roads (and more) via motor tax.

There is an argument that rail shouldn't be subsidised by ordinary taxpayers, many of whom don't use it at all.

Personally I would close all lines that are hopelessly losing money once a best effort to make them profitable has been tried and failed.

because closing things that didn't make a proffit worked so well last time, oh wait, so the lot of the network then, i suppose we should close anything that doesn't make a proffit? so if my line goes why should my taxes go toards for example dart underground? well my line will be closed probably so i won't be able to use it. oh wait i don't get a choice, as heres the problem, one signs up to paying for things they don't use as they are legally obliged to pay tax.

Jamie2k9 · 13-08-2014 5:49pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

The entire rail system so?

Now don't manipulate the point being made.

cgcsb · 13-08-2014 5:59pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I thought motorists collectively funded all roads (and more) via motor tax.

There is an argument that rail shouldn't be subsidised by ordinary taxpayers, many of whom don't use it at all.

Personally I would close all lines that are hopelessly losing money once a best effort to make them profitable has been tried and failed.

VRT certainly does not cover the roads bill. €8bn of public money has been spent on building motorways alone in the past decade. The bill for all new roads, plus maintenance plus subsidising the toll companies means that roads are running a massive deficit.

IÉ's loss was about €14m in 2011, the VAT paid to the state on each ticket would more than cover the shortfall. Ergo we should close the M3, M9 and M18 schemes.

Emme · 13-08-2014 6:59pm

I think the losses are partly due to the demographic travelling by rail. Do Irish Rail get subsidised for the passengers who travel free or at significantly reduced cost? There is a small core of workers who commute by train but there is a significant number of people who don't pay much. Pensioners take full advantage of the train and fair play to them, they have made their contribution. An awful lot of people in Ireland aren't making a contribution and they still travel by train in droves. Every worker travelling on the train seems to be subsidising 3 people who don't pay for their tickets.

Neon_Lights · 13-08-2014 7:18pm

Emme wrote: »

I think the losses are partly due to the demographic travelling by rail. Do Irish Rail get subsidised for the passengers who travel free or at significantly reduced cost? There is a small core of workers who commute by train but there is a significant number of people who don't pay much. Pensioners take full advantage of the train and fair play to them, they have made their contribution. An awful lot of people in Ireland aren't making a contribution and they still travel by train in droves. Every worker travelling on the train seems to be subsidising 3 people who don't pay for their tickets.

They get department of social welfare subsidies from ireland and cross border social welfare ni where applicable... and this is only for journeys made with tickets.

Judgement Day · 13-08-2014 7:18pm

Emme wrote: »

I think the losses are partly due to the demographic travelling by rail. Do Irish Rail get subsidised for the passengers who travel free or at significantly reduced cost? There is a small core of workers who commute by train but there is a significant number of people who don't pay much. Pensioners take full advantage of the train and fair play to them, they have made their contribution. An awful lot of people in Ireland aren't making a contribution and they still travel by train in droves. Every worker travelling on the train seems to be subsidising 3 people who don't pay for their tickets.

You're all over the place with your post. OAPs and some others have free travel but this has little to do with the shambolic state of affairs that exist within the company. The old red herring of the free travel scheme is routinely trotted out by those with their own petty agendas and little knowledge of CIE/IE. The Railways have been a political football since nationalisation in 1950 and the present set-up is not reformable. Incidentally, I don't know where you get your anecdotal figure of one worker (paying passenger) for every three people travelling free.....

jackofalltrades · 13-08-2014 8:02pm

end of the road wrote: »

what routes would they be. really the unviable routes closed in the 60s, closing any more will solve nothing, like it solved nothing then. tell us all how more efficient irish rail could be on the current subsidy?

Closing low volume routes and not spending money on opening new ones would be a start.

no it shouldn't, management pay should, the subsidy is to pay for the service, so it should be payed.

Paying a subsidy regardless of performance just encourages under-performance.

so if my line goes why should my taxes go towards for example dart underground?

If you live outside of Dublin none of your taxes ever go towards paying for services in Dublin.
Dublin is a net contributor of about €1 billion to the rest of the counties of Ireland every year.

Copyerselveson wrote:

The Motorway system in places like the Waterford Motorway, the M3 and the Limerick tunnels are sucking up masses of government subsidies and the railway is losing out

How much is the subsidy? And how does it compare to the subsidy the railways get each year.

end of the road · 13-08-2014 8:16pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Closing low volume routes

tried and failed. again, what routes, the majority of the network could be classed as "under performing"

jackofalltrades wrote: »

not spending money on opening new ones would be a start.

so you don't want dart underground then? thats okay, personally i do as i would use it, unless of course my rail line is ever closed meaning i won't be able to.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Paying a subsidy regardless of performance just encourages under-performance.

no it doesn't, management manage the company, if it is under performing, book stops with them. hence matching their pay to their performance is a brilliant idea.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If you live outside of Dublin none of your taxes ever go towards paying for services in Dublin.

yes it does. the money goes around the system.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Dublin is a net contributor of about €1 billion to the rest of the counties of Ireland every year.

and? it contributes, like the rest of the country contributes. the money goes around. so i'm entitled to the services i get like you. and for the most part i get them all though like everywhere they could do better.

jackofalltrades · 13-08-2014 8:20pm

cgcsb wrote: »

VRT certainly does not cover the roads bill. €8bn of public money has been spent on building motorways alone in the past decade. The bill for all new roads, plus maintenance plus subsidising the toll companies means that roads are running a massive deficit.

According to this the tax tax from motorists alone for last year was €4.3bn.
Motorists easily pay for their road infrastructure.

IÉ's loss was about €14m in 2011, the VAT paid to the state on each ticket would more than cover the shortfall. Ergo we should close the M3, M9 and M18 schemes.

After a state contribution of €142 million.
The motorways got a lot less than that.
That and if the government really wanted to, they could probably re-negotiate the contract to stop subsidy payments but allow the toll companies to toll the roads for longer.

jackofalltrades · 13-08-2014 8:48pm

end of the road wrote: »

tried and failed. again, what routes, the majority of the network could be classed as "under performing"

One or all of the following:

Ballybrophy to Limerick
Waterford to Limerick
Limerick to Galway

Replace the service with a bus instead.

so you don't want dart underground then? thats okay, personally i do as i would use it, unless of course my rail line is ever closed meaning i won't be able to.

Let me clarify that, I was referring to projects like the WRC with that comment.

and? it contributes, like the rest of the country contributes. the money goes around. so i'm entitled to the services i get like you. and for the most part i get them all though like everywhere they could do better.

When you net it out, Dublin is a massive contributor.
So if you live outside of Dublin your taxes aren't going towards providing our infrastructure.

Judgement Day · 13-08-2014 9:10pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

One or all of the following:

Ballybrophy to Limerick
Waterford to Limerick
Limerick to Galway

Replace the service with a bus instead.
Let me clarify that, I was referring to projects like the WRC with that comment.

When you net it out, Dublin is a massive contributor.
So if you live outside of Dublin your taxes aren't going towards providing our infrastructure.

And when these closure fail/worsen the situation at Irish Rail, where then the axe...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein.

end of the road · 13-08-2014 9:41pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

One or all of the following:

Ballybrophy to Limerick
Waterford to Limerick
Limerick to Galway

Ballybrophy to Limerick is certainly a goner, limerick waterford shouldn't be touched, it has decent sized towns on it clonmell especially. limerick galway isn't going anywhere all though ennis athenry (the reopened section) wouldn't be missed i suppose if it did have to go, ennis limerick seems to have a good amount of traffic

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Replace the service with a bus instead.

or just tell the users "buy a car" once you replace a rail service with a bus thats what seems to happen anyway so it would speed up the process.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Let me clarify that, I was referring to projects like the WRC with that comment.

fair enough, but its not as if such lines are going to be reopened now. as a concept, limerick to galway is viable, however on its current route it isn't going to work. remember it was only the ennis athenry section that was reopened, limerick ennis and galway athenry had decent traffic way before ennis athenry was ever considered for reopening

Hilly Bill · 13-08-2014 11:01pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Myth maybe but pension costs are a major part of the high employee costs. IE staff got away with a lot compared to some sectors of the public service.

As for privatization don't see it myself as most rail services make losses even with state funding.

How do you work that one out?

Hilly Bill · 13-08-2014 11:14pm

Emme wrote: »

I think the losses are partly due to the demographic travelling by rail. Do Irish Rail get subsidised for the passengers who travel free or at significantly reduced cost? There is a small core of workers who commute by train but there is a significant number of people who don't pay much. Pensioners take full advantage of the train and fair play to them, they have made their contribution. An awful lot of people in Ireland aren't making a contribution and they still travel by train in droves. Every worker travelling on the train seems to be subsidising 3 people who don't pay for their tickets.

The amount travelling for free is ridiculous . If IR got paid for every journey a pass holder makes then they would nearly be making a profit. The pass holders seem to be in a majority of those travelling.

Neon_Lights · 13-08-2014 11:27pm

Hilly Bill wrote: »

The amount travelling for free is ridiculous . If IR got paid for every journey a pass holder makes then they would nearly be making a profit. The pass holders seem to be in a majority of those travelling.

As i said they do ... from the deparment of social welfare ... here and from northern ireland... they still make a loss...

There are only three profitable rail systems in the world vancouver and tokyo and osaka.. all others make losses.

What i would say is that stations in ireland are heavily uncommercialised in comparison to germany

mickydoomsux · 13-08-2014 11:29pm

Hilly Bill wrote: »

The amount travelling for free is ridiculous . If IR got paid for every journey a pass holder makes then they would nearly be making a profit. The pass holders seem to be in a majority of those travelling.

In the 4 stations my manager covers they make up well over 60% of the passengers.

The blank free travel tickets come in boxes of 2000 as opposed to the 1000 boxes for everything else.

And paying customers are standing on nearly every train. Nearly a quarter of the population of the country can travel for nothing.

The price of an annual Taxsaver ticket is going up in in a magnitude of hundreds. Free travel still costs the same as it ever did.

But keep cutting my wages, subvention, non-payroll costs, staffing levels and anything that isn't the sacred All-Island free travel scheme.

Destroy public transport by punishing the paying customer to keep it free and then wonder why no one who has to pay might use it. A uniquely Irish solution, take care of the non-contributor to the detriment of the fool who has to pay.

Irish Rail

Comments